Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/556/2018

Jatinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Videocon Industries Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dikshit Arora Adv. & Rajni Adv.

09 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	556 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	05.10.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	09.10.2019

 

 

 

 

Jatinder Singh, Resident of House No.1117, Village Kishangarh, Chandigarh.   

          

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Videocon Industries Ltd., Main Head Office, Plot No.296, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana.

2]  Electrowave (Multi Brand Shop) SCO No.1093, Mori Gate, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

                                SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

 

 

Argued By:       Sh.Dikshit Arora, Adv. for Complainant

None for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh.Jatin Khullar, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainant in brief is that on 12.10.2014, he purchased one Videocon LED Television from Opposite Party NO.2 for an amount of Rs.40,000/- and it was carrying 5 years warranty (Ann.C-1). It is averred that from the day one, speaker of the LED TV was having problem, which was reported to Opposite Party NO.2 a good number of times and a complaint was also got registered in this regard on 10.7.2018.  Thereafter, the Technician of Opposite Party No.1 checked the LED TV and told that its speakers needs to be replaced.  However, even after fixing new Speakers in the LED TV by technician of Opposite Party No.1, the sound was not audible.  It is stated that the technician of Opposite Party No.1 informed the complainant that there is some problem in the mother board of LED TV and this is manufacturing defect and it cannot be cured. Thereafter, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 many a times for replacement of the LED TV in question being under warranty, but to no avail.  The notice sent to OPs also did not yield any result.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant never approached Opposite Party No.1 with sound problem or speaker problem.  It is stated that till 2017 there was no compliant in the record of company i.e. for 3 years from the date of purchase, hence the allegation of manufacturing defect stands null and void.  It is also stated that the complaint number mentioned by the complainant is false and misleading.  It is further stated that whenever the service engineer has visited, he has resolved the complaint. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.2 has also filed reply stating that the complainant at no point of time ever apprised the answering Opposite Party that the LED Television in question is under 5 years warranty scheme.  It is stated that the complainant when approached answering Opposite Party with complaint of voice disturbance in the LED, the same was forwarded to the company/Opposite Party No.1, whose official visited the house of complainant and taken necessary actions.  It is stated that the complainant was adamant and stated himself to be the court employee and is working with Judicial Magistrate at District Courts, Sector 43, Chandigarh had also threatened the Opposite Party No.2 to implicate him in false case.  It is also stated that the Opposite Party No.2 do not want to be in litigation and had got installed the LED make Samsung 32” at the house of the complainant and requested him to send the LED make Videocon 32” at the shop of Opposite Party No.2 for necessary repairs since the same was not under warranty and was purchased by the complainant 5 years back in the year 2014, but neither the complainant had sent his LED make Videocon to the shop of Opposite Party No.2 for repairs nor he returned the LED make Samsung 32” which was installed by Opposite Party No.2 at his house and this manner, he grabbed the LED make Samsung 32”. It is submitted that the complainant had approached the Opposite Party NO.2 in August, 2018 for the first time with the problem of voice disturbance in the LED and thereafter the Opposite Party No.2 had installed the LED make Samsung 32” in the house of complainant in good faith under the influence of complainant.

 

3]       The complainant also filed rejoinder reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in their reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record.

 

6]       The allegation of the complainant pertains to the factum that the LED TV purchased by him on 12.10.2014 is having manufacturing defect as the speakers of the said LED TV went out of order and the OPs failed to rectify the defect even after replacing one set of speakers on the complaint raised by him. Complainant also claimed that the said TV carries 5 years warranty.

 

7]       Contrary to the allegations, the Opposite Party No.2 has denied any deficiency in service on their part stating that it only sold the said TV to the complainant carrying company’s warranty. The other party i.e. Opposite Party No.1 (Manufacturer) submitted that all the allegations are baseless & wrong as to pressurize the Opposite Party No.1 to come to the terms of complainant, who claim himself to be a court employee being attached with Judicial Magistrate at District Court.  Opposite Party NO.2 claimed that on receiving a complaint from the complainant, an employee of the company visited the premises of the complainant to rectify the defect. Also stated that it installed a 32” Samsung TV at the premises of complainant and the complainant was asked to send the LED TV in question at the shop of Opposite Party No.1 for necessary repairs, which he never send nor he returned the stand-by LED TV.

8]       The complainant in his rejoinder denied the factum of installation of any stand-by LED TV.

 

9]       Out of the disputed facts, it is made out that Opposite Party NO.2 is still ready to make the necessary repairs in the LED TV in question.  No proof in regards to the warranty as claimed to be of 5 years on the LED TV in question is placed on record by the complainant, so no presumption can be drawn for the same in favour of the complainant as Opposite Parties have denied that the Samsung LED TV carries 5 years warranty. 

 

10]      Definitely, the LED TV in question is having speakers problem, which Opposite Party No.2 is ready to set right.  As no demand of any money is raised for the repair, so reasonable presumption can be drawn in favour of the complainant that Opposite Party NO.2 is ready & willing to repair the LED TV in question without charging any repair cost.  So, we hereby partly allow the present complaint with direction to Opposite Party NO.2/Electrowave (Multi-Brand Shop) to get repaired the LED TV in question from company’s service centre and make it functional to the satisfaction of the complainant. In case, it failed to repair the LED TV or any part thereof being not available for the repair, in that eventuality, it shall refund 50% of the amount spent on the purchase of the LED TV (i.e. Rs.20,000/-) within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  

         No order in regard to compensation and litigation cost are imposed. 

         In case the Opposite Party NO.2 failed to rectify the defect in LED TV or in alternate failed to pay the 50% amount spent on the purchase of the LED TV (i.e. Rs.20,000/-) within the stipulated period of 30 days, then it shall pay an additional sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.

         The relief in regard to return of stand-by TV cannot be granted as nothing is on record to prove such fact.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

9^th October, 2019                   

                                                                                      Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER